Hi Mike, So we agreed ;) The first round is to upgrade the dependency and throw OperationNotSupportedException for new methods.
The "JMS support" announcement will stand only when we will implement all methods. Anyway, that’s a effort worth to do (and I already started), so, let’s just try to move forward. Regards JB > Le 22 mai 2021 à 09:22, Michael André Pearce > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Just a note, I have no issue in updating the JMS dependency to a newer one, > for class-path reasons, as long as new JMS 2.0 methods and features implement > exceptions, rather than hacking or trying to get "like" behaviours. > > But we cannot brand, advertise or announce JMS 2.0 compatibility in any form > of ActiveMQ 5, for that full broker TCK compliance would be needed. > > > On 22 May 2021 at 7:59, Michael André Pearce > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi JB, >> >> I disagree here, the ultimate burden of maintenance is down to the >> committers and pmc. >> >> Just because a user requests something, doesn't mean it has to be rushed in, >> with some hack, or even accepted. Kafka project rejects many proposals via >> their KIP process and other projects also. Like wise ive had some of my own >> request / proposal in this project itself rejected. >> >> Clearly as seen with TomEE some hack can be done, but then the burden of >> issues and maintenance is on them, there is nothing stopping them doing that. >> >> Tbh i see two routes here, for users wanting JMS 2.0 supported. >> >> 1) Support and help those to migrate to ActiveMQ Artemis, there's now many >> organisations who have made this migration I'm sure if someone is having >> some issue there's help, which was originally the intent of its adoption >> and still in my view the best idea here. >> >> 2) Take our time, and implement JMS 2.0 properly in ActiveMQ 5 "Classic" >> properly ensuring it meets the TCK before release. >> >> Best >> Mike >> >> >> On 22 May 2021 at 5:53, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mike, >>> >>> Anyway, as it’s requested by our users, we have to move forward about that. >>> That’s the JMS 2.0 imps part but my main concern is also the dependency. >>> For instance, camel-jms is JMS 2.0 and running in spring-boot or karaf with >>> ActiveMQ brings JMS 1.1 and 2.0 dependencies in the same runtime. >>> >>> I hear Chris and your points, thanks for that. So I propose to move forward >>> with a first PR. >>> I will start by implementing some OperationNotSupportedException in the new >>> methods, and then adding better support step by step. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 22 mai 2021 à 01:42, Michael André Pearce >>>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> I would agree this defiantly should not be done client side, the feature >>>> needs to be fully and properly implemented broker side. >>>> >>>> I've been reviewing the so called JMS2 client at TomEE, and there are just >>>> so many spec issues with the implementation, like some of those mentioned >>>> by Chris, theres actually quite a few nasty surprises people will get tbh, >>>> its asking for trouble. >>>> >>>> As well I hope that any implementation done, is not just for openwire, but >>>> works with the AMQP 1.0 connections that many users are now adopting. >>>> >>>> Like wise i hope that if there's a commitment to add the feature, that >>>> there's a commitment to ensure the openwire clients are updated not just >>>> the Java one..... >>>> >>>> I know work has gone into properly supporting JMS 2.0 semantics to NMS for >>>> AMQP which fully works with Artemis, theres been some bugs found before >>>> its released, but the point being people will expect that the open wire is >>>> supported, or if not at least the AMQP implementation in the ActiveMQ >>>> broker also properly implemented. >>>> >>>> I would def not be providing a positive vote in a release vote for the >>>> current proposal, of just doing some client hack to make it look like, but >>>> not meet JMS 2.0 spec, its asking for issues. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 May 2021 at 16:09, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/19/21 6:17 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: >>>>>> Moving back to dev list again... >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes we had talked about it before in terms of the client side but it >>>>>> wasn't >>>>>> clear in this thread as your original answer on this thread was "ActiveMQ >>>>>> 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0." with no caveats or clarification to mention >>>>>> that it would not be full support. Seeing as how this was on the users >>>>>> list >>>>>> that would be a bit misleading to users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I still don't really know what the point of "client side" support >>>>>> is >>>>>> because you can use the JMS 2.0 jar with ActiveMQ as long as you don't >>>>>> call >>>>>> the new methods. Looking at that code you linked it seems like the new >>>>>> methods (like shared subscription creation) just delegate to the old JMS >>>>>> 1.1 methods such as in >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java>> >>>>>> That behavior seems odd and confusing to me because if a user is calling >>>>>> methods to make a shared subscription or shared durable but it wasn't >>>>>> supported I think it would be much preferable to just throw an error or >>>>>> something vs delegating back. It seems way worse to allow users to call >>>>>> those methods with no errors as a user of the library would (no surprise) >>>>>> be expecting it to provide a shared subscription and it doesn't with no >>>>>> indidication. If someone is writing an application and their business >>>>>> logic >>>>>> is asking for a shared subscription but we don't provide it then that is >>>>>> very different semantics and would most likely break the application so I >>>>>> think that's a pretty bad idea overall so I really don't see why we would >>>>>> want to do that. >>>>> >>>>> I'd have to agree here, the client shouldn't do the wrong thing just to >>>>> pretend that it did something. If it can't do it then it should fail so >>>>> that people know what the limitations are, and also the limitations >>>>> should be clearly and explicitly documented where people can find it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Other people can chime in but I would be very likely to veto a code >>>>>> change >>>>>> for client support that simply delegates 2.0 methods to 1.1 methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s what we discussed last >>>>>>> year: >>>>>>> start with the client the side, and then move forward for server side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What we planned in 5.16.x will be in 5.17.x. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 19 mai 2021 à 06:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> a >>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The first step is at least the client support, similar to what have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>> done on OpenEJB: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2>>< >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2>> >>>>>>>> This allow TomEE to work with ActiveMQ using JMS 2.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, the proposal is to have a two steps work: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Support JMS 2.0 client side, it will help in tomee, karaf, etc >>>>>>>> 2. Step by step implement server side support >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMHO, 1 would be good step forward already and it works fine for a >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>> in tomee. It will already allow us to update the spec. >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 21:09, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> What exactly are you proposing? Full support would be a tremendous >>>>>>> amount >>>>>>>>> of work. I started a thread on this already a while back here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html>>My >>>>>>> issue here is the lack of clarity. I have no clue what you are >>>>>>> proposing >>>>>>>>> but it needs to be defined so we don't mislead users by claiming there >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 support when there isn't. I listed out possible paths forward >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> that other thread. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It’s something that we already discussed and I moved forward on the >>>>>>>>>> PR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I propose to move forward on JMS 2.0 support. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the community agree, and tests are fine, I don’t see any issue to >>>>>>>>>> support it in 5.17.0 as best effort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I will propose the PR, and see when to include it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:36, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> Since when is JMS 2.0 supposed to be supported by 5.17.0? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> None of the features are implemented on the server side for the new >>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>> calls. This was brought up in a dev discussion that there won't be >>>>>>>>>>> JMS >>>>>>>>>> 2.0 >>>>>>>>>>> support on the server side in this release. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He’s not PMC but committer, so he can help anyway ;) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:23, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think Romain is still the PMC for TomEE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:19 >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>Subject: Re: Which activeMQ >>>>>>>>>>>>> (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >>>>>>>>>> 3.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m sure I can ask help from Romain about TomEE releases ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:09, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Jean-Baptiste, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are using ActiveMQ in TomEE context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I am just curious about when this version could be included in >>>>>>>>>> TomEE >>>>>>>>>>>> releases. I will push for that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 >>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0 ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of the RC is to cut an early release (kind of "cut >>>>>>>>>>>> SNAPSHOT") to allow users to test it before the first "official" >>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I can propose to you is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I need couple of weeks to open the PRs and merge it (I’m on >>>>>>> JDK11 >>>>>>>>>>>> now, identifying/fixing/disabling some tests) 2. When done, I will >>>>>>>>>> inform >>>>>>>>>>>> you on the mailing list allowing you to test using the SNAPSHOTs >>>>>>>>>>>> (5.17.0-SNAPSHOT) 3. If I don’t see any blocker on SNAPSHOT, then I >>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> move forward on 5.17.0 release >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it sound good to you ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:59, Simon Billingsley >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the details information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in the Log4J 2 upgrade. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How long does the release take after the RC process normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 May 2021, at 15:53, Jean-Baptiste Onofre >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi François, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, what I’m planning for ActiveMQ 5.17.0: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - JDK11 build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Spring 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Log4j2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - JMS 2.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About date target, I’m working on JDK11 build now and the other >>>>>>> PRs >>>>>>>>>>>> will follow. I would like to submit a first 5.17 RC end of June. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:48, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>><mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question to be answered is in the Subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tim Bish >>>>> >>>
